cubits lower than Solomon's (1). When he acquainted the Jews with his defign, they were alarmed at it, thinking that it would be both difficult and dangerous to put fuch a thing in execution, and moreover judging it unlawful to meddle with a temple which God had restored to them in fo wonderful a manner. Befides, they were afraid that the divine fervice would have been interrupted for a confiderable time, while this new temple was a building. But Herod removed their fears, by affuring them that the old temple should remain untouched, till all the materials for the new one were got ready. And accordingly it appears from hiftory, that the divine fervice was performed all the time the new one was building, or rather the old one repairing. Jofephus observes (m), that Herod "durft not prefume to enter into the holy place himself be"caule not being a priest, he ftood prohibited by the law; but that he "committed the care of this part of the work to the priests themselves :" from whence it plainly appears, that place was not pulled down, but only fome alterations made in it. The fame is further evident from the gospel () wherein it is faid, that Jofeph and Mary went to Jerufalem every year at the feast of the paffover, which was celebrated in the temple, and that they went thither with Jefus Chrift, according to custom (o). Had there been any interruption in that matter, the Evangelift could not have used that expreffion. And therefore the Jews never make mention of any more than two temples, looking upon Herod's, only as Zerubbabel's repaired, though it might justly have been reckoned a new temple, both upon the account of the magnificent buildings he added to it, and the rich materials he ufed; which whilft the difciples of Jefus Chrift were once admiring (0), he took an occafion from thence of foretelling the ruin of that temple. This magnificence the prophet Haggai (p) had an eye to, when he declared that the glory of this latter boufe was to be greater than that of the former. But, notwithstanding all the beauty and fumptuoufnefs of Herod's temple, this prophecy was not fulfilled but by Jefus Chrift's coming into it; He, who was the true temple of God, and of whom that of ferufalem was no more than a very imperfect figure, as St. Paul (9) and Jefus Christ himself (r) do intimate. How noble foever the defcriptions are (s) which the Jews have given us of Herod's temple, yet they unanimously agree (t) that there were feveral things wanting in it, as well as in that of Zerubbabel, which were the chief glory of the firft temple; that is, the Ark of the covenant, wherein were put the two tables of the law, with the pot of manna, and Aaron's rod that budded; the Urim and Thummim; the cloud, or Shecinah, which was a token of the divine Prefence; the Spirit of prophecy; and the holy anointing oil. Of all these there were but faint reprefentations, and imperfect copies in the fecond temple, as is owned by the Rabbins themfelves. And therefore Haggai's prophecy was applied to the Meffiab by the ancient Jewish doctors (u), who fay, that the glory of the fecond temple (0) Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. 1. Luke xxi. 5. (n) Luke ii. 41, 42. (p) Hag. ii. 9. (9) Colof. ii. 9. (r) John ii. 21. (s) Jof. Antiq. Jud. 1. xv. c. 14. (t) Thalmud, ap. Lightfoot, Tom. ii. Opp. p. 275. (4) Aben-Efra ap. Deyling Obf. facr. Part. iii. Obs. 20. temple confifted in this, that it was honoured with the Meffiah's prefence. Jofephus tells us (x), that Herod fet about this work in the eighteenth year of his reign; and finished it in the space of nine years and a half. Which must neceffarily be underftood of the walls and main body of the building, and not of all its parts and ornaments, fince the fame hiftorian relates in another place, that it was not quite finished till the time of Agrippa the Younger, the grandson of Herod, that is about fixty years after the birth of Jefus Chrift. We have no reason therefore to be surprised at what the Jews told JESUS CHRIST (y), that this temple was forty and fix years in building, fince if we reckon from the eighteenth year of the reign of Herod, [when he undertook to rebuild the temple.] to the thirtieth year of Jefus Chrift, [in which this difpute happened between him and the Jews] we fhall find juft forty fix years. It is more natural to put this fenfe upon the words of the Jews, than, as others have done, to compute thofe forty fix years from the order given by Cyrus for rebuilding the temple, to the finishing of it; because by this last calculation those years cannot well be made out. Jofephus relates that the people were overjoyed to see the work compleated, and that they offered numberless facrifices upon that occafion. How great a fhew foever there might be of religion in this undertaking, yet it could by no means make amends for the miferies which that unhappy people fuffered from the impieties, and above all from the cruelties of Herod. If he built a temple in honour of the true God, he erected several, on the other hand, to falle deities, in order to ingratiate himself with Auguftus and the Romans (z). But his prevailing character was an extreme inhumanity, and the most enormous cruelty. Though Jofephus hath extolled, as much as poffible, the good qualities of Herod, yet he could not conceal his crimes and vices, and above all his horrid cruelty. He imbrued his hands in the blood of his wife, of his children, and of the greatest part of his family: Of so restless and jealous a temper was he, that he fpared neither his people, nor the richest and most powerful of his fubjects, nor even his very friends (a). He was naturally fo fufpicious, that he put the innocent to the torture, for fear the guilty fhould escape (b). It is justly wondered at that fofephus fhould make no mention of the flaughter of the infants at Bethlehem (c), which was done by Herod's order, not long after our Saviour's birth. To account for this omiffion, fome learned men have imagined, that this moffacre having been done privately from houfe to houfe by a few foldiers, it made no great noife, or elfe was not let to Herod's account (d). But it is most probable that Jofephus knew nothing of it, fince he found it not in the memoirs of Nicolaus Damafcenus, an historian of those times; whom he himself charges with having palliated and difguifed (x) Jof. Antiq. l. xv. c. 14. (z) Jofeph. Ant. 1. xv. c. 12, 13. (y) John ii. 20. (c) Matth. ii. 16. (a) Jof. Ant. 1. xi. cap. 11. & de Bell. Jud. 1. i. p. 17. (6) id ibid. p. 19. (4) Lami Harm. Evang. p. 54. guifed the most notorious and extravagant cruelties of Herod (e). It feems however not to have been unknown to a heathen author (ƒ), who fpeaks of it (though confufedly,) in the following manner: "Auguftus having been informed, that among fome children, which Herod had ordered to be killed in Syria, (he should have said Judeo) he did not fpare one of his own fons, faid, That it was much better to be Herod's fwine, than his "fon," alluding to the Jewish cuftom of not eating fwine's flefh. However this be, as Herod was a few, he could not be the author of fo barbarous a cruelty without making himself guilty of the utmost impiety, fince he did it with a design to cut off the Meffiah, being fully fatisfied by the anfwer which he received from the chief priests and elders (g), that the new-born infant was the promifed Chrift. His end, and a very difmal one, being a vifible punishment of his wickedness, clofely followed this horrid butchery. He died as he had lived, contriving nothing but mischief, and framing the moft bloody and inhuman defigns (b). His death was looked upon as a very happy deliverance, and the tidings of it received with the utmost joy and fatisfaction; which that vile monfter well foreseeing, he had ordered all the chief men of the city to be barbarously murdered before he died, that there might be a general mourning at his death (i). A Jewish doctor, fuppofed to be pretty ancient, affirms that the day of his death was kept by the Jews, as a feftival (k). The learned are not agreed about the year of his death; but thus much is certain, that he died 34 years after the expulfion of Antigonus, and in the 37th year from his being declared king of the Jews by the Romans (1). We fhall have occafion to examine this more particularly hereafter, when we come to treat of the chronology of the New Teftament. After having spoken of Herod the Great, it is proper Of the pofterity that we fhould next give an account of his fons and grandfons, as far as is requifite for the understanding the New Teftament. We find three of his fons mentioned there, between whom, by his last will and teftament, he divided his dominions; viz. ARCHELAUS, to whom he gave the kingdom of Judea, together with Idumea, and Samaria; HEROD Antipas, or Antipater, whom he appointed Tetrarch or governor of Galilee and Perca; and PHILIP, whom he made Jikewife Tetrarch of Ituræa, Batanæa, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and fome other countries. It was neceffary that Herod's will fhould be ratified by Auguftus Cafar, and it was accordingly done, excepting this, that he of Herod. (e) Jof. Ant. J. xvi. p. 11. (g) Matt. ii. 4, 5, 6. (f) Macrob. Saturn. ii. 4. would (b) Jof. Ant. L. xvii. cap. 8. He was parched up with a faint, inward fever, that almoft burnt his heart out, and yet fcarce fenfible to the touch. He was tormented with an infatiable appetite, ulcers and cholicks in his bowels; phlegmatick tumors in his feet and groin; afthmas, cramps; &c. (i) Ib. ibid. (4) Megillath Taanith ap. Uffer. Ann. p. 535. Lami Appar. Chron. (7) Jofephus ubi fupr. would not bestow upon Archelaus the title of king, but only that of Ethnarch, that is, prince or chief of the nation (m). This name, which had been given before to fome of the high-priefts, (as to Hyrcanus for (n) inftance,) seems to denote a dignity fuperior to that of a Tetrarch, but inferior to that of a king, fince Auguftus, refufing to confer this latter title upon Archelaus, was however willing to diftinguith him from his brothers by that of Ethnarch. The learned are not agreed about the meaning of the word Tetrarch. But it may be inferred from what hath been just now said, that it was reckoned less honourable than the name of king or prince. In its primary and original fignification it implies a governor of a fourth part of the country, and this feems to have been the firft meaning that was afixed to it. (o). But it was afterwards given to the governors of a province, whether their government was the fourth part of a country, or not; as it happened in the cafe now before us, for Herod divided his kingdom only into three parts. However, the Tetrarchs were looked upon as princes, and fometimes complimented even with the name of kings (p), but this was a mifapplying of the word. Archelaus was acknowledged king by the people with vaft expreffions of joy; but though he had declared that he would not ufurp that title, without the emperor's confent, yet he foon acted like a king, or rather a tyrant, that is, in a very abfolute and arbitary manner. Auguftus had promised him the kingly power, whenever he fhould make himself worthy of that honour (q); but he, instead of endeavouring to gain the favour of his fovereign, and the good-will of his fubjects, exercised in the very beginning of his reign fuch cruelties towards them, that, not being able to bear his unjust and barbarous dealings, they complained of him to Auguflus. It was undoubtedly upon the account of the tyrannical temper of this prince, that Jofeph and Mary, when they came back from Egypt, and heard that he reigned in Judea, in the room of his father Herod, were afraid to go thither: and therefore came and dwelt in a city of Galilee called Nazareth (r), which was under the jurifdiction of Antipas, a good and mild governour. We cannot exactly tell whether this return of Jofeph and Mary happened before, or after, Archelaus's journey to Rome to have his father's will confirmed. However, when he came back to Jerufalem, he acted in as tyrannical a manner as ever, so that the chief men of the Jews and Samaritans joined in fuch grievous complaints against him, that Cæfar banished him to Vienne, a city in Gaul, where he died (s). From that time Judea was made a province of the Roman empire, and as well as Samaria and Idumæa, governed by Roman magiftrates, which had the name of Procurators, the first of whom was Capo nius of the equeftrian order (t). Thefe Procurators depended upon the prefident of Syria, to which Judea and Samaria alfo were annexed, after Auguftus had reduced them into provinces. Quirinus, a Roman fenator, was then governor of Syria, and he it was who with the affiftance of Coponius (m) Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xvii. p. 13. (n) Id. Antiq. 1. xiv. p. zz. Coponius put the emperor's commands in execution, by thus reducing Judea and Samaria into provinces. This is the fame Quirinus whom St. Luke and Jofephus (u) call Cyrenius, who by Cafar's order, made a taxing in Judea and Syria. JOSEPHUS mentions only this laft taxing. But it is unquestionably manifeft from St. Luke, that there was another ten years before, that is, at the time of our Saviour's birth (x). It is therefore to distinguish this first taxing from the fecond, that the Evangelift fays, that this, which happened at the birth of our Saviour, was made before that of Quirinus, which the fame divine author makes alfo mention of in the Acts of the apostles (y). It is true that St. Luke's words are obfcure and ambiguous, for one would think at first fight that they should be rendered, This first taxing was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria (z). But this tranflation of them cannot be reconciled, with the history of those times; for it appears that, at the time of our Saviour's nativity, it was either Sentius Saturninus or Quintilius Varus, that was prefident of Syria, and not Quirinus (a). It may however be fuppofed, that, as it happened fometimes, Quirinus was fent by the emperor into Syria with an extraordinary commiffion to make his first taxing, and was perhaps invefted with the title of governor or procurator, these two names being often promiscuously used by sacred and profane writers (b). But, in fhort, there is no occafion of having recourse to this suppofition, if we do but render the words of S. Luke thus, This taxing was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria, The original will admit of this fenfe, as well as the other, and therefore we have followed it in our tranflation after feveral learned criticks (c). Quirinus's taxing had made fo much noife, and the memory of it was fo freth in men's minds, when St. Luke wrote his gospel, that he had reason to suppose it had caufed the other to be forgotten, fince it had been, in all likelihood, lefs taken notice of, as being no more than a bare enrolling of the citizens names, without taking an estimate of their eftates, as was done by Quirinus; therefore the Evangelift thought fit to diftinguish them one from another. For it is to be obferved, that when JESUS CHRIST was born, Judea was not the tributary to the Romans, as it had been before in the time of Pompey, because Auguftus had given it to Herod; but, when after the banishment of Archelaus, it was again reduced into a province, it became on courfe tributary to the Roman empire, and accordingly an eftimation of it was made in order to fettle and regulate the taxes and tribute. The reafon why Jofephus doth not fpeak of the fift taxing mentioned (u) Luke ii. 2. Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xviii. p. 1. For an account of the nature of the Procurator's office, fee Bishop Pearfon on the Creed, upon these words, Under Pontius Pilate. (x) Luke ii. 2. (y) A&ts v. 37. (κ) Αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγνεῖο ἡγεμονεύοντος της Συρίας Κυρηνία. (a) Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. iv. p. 19. (b) Lami Appar. cap. 10. fe&t. iii. (c) See Perizonius, Differtat. de Aug. Defcript. And Dr. Whitby, in his Comment on this place. |